[QUOTE=Bones85;34757816]Spot on.[/QUOTE]That, and the only time Republicans whine and demand a popular vote on something is if it's a social issue they disagree with, such as gay marriage. Didn't see them asking for the popular vote on things like DOMA.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760493]And that's your opinion. But it's idiotic to go bitching about the "tyranny of the majority!" when the system is working exactly as it was designed to do. Welcome to democracy.[/QUOTE]
The system is NOT working if a civil liberties issue is on the ballot, and thus all registered voters get to vote for it. The US is NOT a democracy, it's a REPUBLIC. That means we elect representatives to represent us.
[QUOTE=Bones85;34760588]The system is NOT working if a civil liberties issue is on the ballot, and thus all registered voters get to vote for it. The US is NOT a democracy, it's a REPUBLIC. That means we elect representatives to represent us.[/QUOTE]
And what if the vote had failed in the house? Would you accept those results? Why shouldn't the voters of Maryland be allowed to vote on a major issue that will affect them?
Jesus, you're bitching about tyranny in a system where the people are being allowed to directly vote on an issue that will affect them. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
Which brings me back to my main point. You don't give a fuck about the system at all. All you care about is the bill passing. You don't care how it passes as long as it passes, and you hide this by making some bullshit rant about how the system is unfair when it clearly is not.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760650]And what if the vote had failed in the house? Would you accept those results?[/QUOTE]
No, I wouldn't. I'd make sure that anyone who voted against the bill gets voted out because they're bigots.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760650]Why shouldn't the voters of Maryland be allowed to vote on a major issue that will affect them?[/QUOTE]
It's a civil liberties issue. Why should minorities be subjected to tyranny of the majority? You do realize that civil rights, women rights, etc. would have NEVER occurred had we put issues like these on the ballot for everyone to vote for. Integration would NOT have happened.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760650]Jesus, you're bitching about tyranny in a system where the people are being allowed to directly vote on an issue that will affect them. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?[/QUOTE]
No, it's not idiotic. Once again, this is a civil liberties issue, and EVERYONE should have the right to marry.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760650]Which brings me back to my main point. You don't give a fuck about the system at all. All you care about is the bill passing. You don't care how it passes as long as it passes, and you hide this by making some bullshit rant about how the system is unfair when it clearly is not.[/QUOTE]
Fuck you. The system IS unfair if it allows the majority to trample on the rights of minorities, and that's EXACTLY what happens when you put it on the ballot. The US is NOT a direct democracy. The founding fathers specifically warned about tyranny of the majority.
[QUOTE=Bones85;34760730]No, I wouldn't. I'd make sure that anyone who voted against the bill gets voted out because they're bigots.
It's a civil liberties issue. Why should minorities be subjected to tyranny of the majority? You do realize that civil rights, women rights, etc. would have NEVER occurred had we put issues like these on the ballot for everyone to vote for. Integration would NOT have happened.
No, it's not idiotic. Once again, this is a civil liberties issue, and EVERYONE should have the right to marry.
Fuck you. The system IS unfair if it allows the majority to trample on the rights of minorities, and that's EXACTLY what happens when you put it on the ballot. The US is NOT a direct democracy. The founding fathers specifically warned about tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE]
[quote]A democracy does not present a pretty picture. A simple explanation of what a democracy represents is: two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper. - In other words, in a democracy (which is majority rule); there is nothing to protect the sheep from the wolves, the wolves representing the majority, the sheep, the minority.
However, in a constitutional republic: the wolves are forbidden from voting on what’s for supper and the sheep is well armed. - Meaning, given the same situation in a constitutional republic, the rights of the sheep are protected from the wolves by the constitution and should the wolves rise up to challenge that right the sheep has a means to protect itself from the mob. (The sheep should always remain well armed)[/quote]
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;34760512]That, and the only time Republicans whine and demand a popular vote on something is if it's a social issue they disagree with, such as gay marriage. Didn't see them asking for the popular vote on things like DOMA.[/QUOTE]
Because DOMA was federal and the populous can't vote on federal legislation
If California didn't have referendums, we'd probably have gay marriage.
:v:
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760493]
I completely support the bill, but it's up to the voters of Maryland to decide. Not you.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not up to the voters.
Human rights and civil liberties shouldn't even be an issue.
If you're against it, you're evil, there is no other reason to deny people their rights.
The only somewhat decent argument you can muster against it is that because most of the country has been brainwashed and indoctrinated in to a hate institution from birth, it should follow their rules.
Which is exactly what's wrong with letting the majority choose if the majority is mentally unable to make a correct choice.
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760493]I completely support the bill, but it's up to the voters of Maryland to decide. Not you.[/QUOTE]
It's easy for you to say this. You don't have to worry about your human right to marry being stipped away by a bunch of bigoted cult members.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34761056]Because DOMA was federal and the populous can't vote on federal legislation[/QUOTE]A bad example, I admit. A better one would've been Arizona's recent immigrant legislation and things like that heavily sponsored by Republicans.
If this goes to the people it will pass. Maryland is a pretty liberal state.
[QUOTE=Takkun10;34763281]If this goes to the people it will pass. Maryland is a pretty liberal state.[/QUOTE]
So is California and the people still voted against it
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34764066]So is California and the people still voted against it[/QUOTE]
That's because even the most liberal states in America aren't that liberal. In other advanced nations such as Canada, England, etc. the liberals here would hardly be considered liberals over there.
Yessssss domino effect, please.
[QUOTE=Elfy;34759295]People are slightly gaining in intelligence.[/QUOTE]
Or the stupid people stuck a fork in the toaster and did the world a favor.
WHAT?? But I thought all gay people were godless, depraved, sociopathic pedophiles??
[QUOTE=Kinversulath;34760650]And what if the vote had failed in the house? Would you accept those results? Why shouldn't the voters of Maryland be allowed to vote on a major issue that will affect them?
Jesus, you're bitching about tyranny in a system where the people are being allowed to directly vote on an issue that will affect them. Do you realize how idiotic that sounds?
Which brings me back to my main point. You don't give a fuck about the system at all. All you care about is the bill passing. You don't care how it passes as long as it passes, and you hide this by making some bullshit rant about how the system is unfair when it clearly is not.[/QUOTE]
Civil rights shouldn't be up for vote.
They should just be. The fact that it's possible to vote away civil rights shows that the system doesn't work.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
